It’s Sunday morning (12/7/25). Spent the last few hours cleaning the house, doing laundry, and snapping more award-winning cat pics (BTW, totally off-topic, but did you know I am a published professional photographer? More than once, I have been paid by national magazines for photos I took…).
Sorry, I digress……
This post is actually just for one person — “Tahira” — who submitted a comment shown below. Actually, I also want to say a few words to the person — “Pot Calling Kettle” who replied to Tahira…
Tahira — I tried to email you at the address you included with your post. User comment emails aren’t confirmed, so you may not have used your real email. Anyway, since you haven’t responded I wanted to answer your questions, even though (at least with the second one) I have already done so before.
First, if I publish a new blog post, I try to start with the comments open. I only turn them off if people get WAY too nasty.
So why were the comments off on the last couple posts? Simple — because I forgot to turn them on. The “allow comments” box is OFF by default, so I need to manually check it each time to turn them on…and sometimes I just forget (the allow comments box is way down at the bottom of the WordPress screen, so it’s easy to miss). Maybe I can change a setting to always allow comments by default? I’m a boomer, not a blogger. Cut me some slack.
Second and much more importantly, you asked if I would be “man enough to apologize”. That question (or some version of it) has been asked MANY times before. Look – I DO think it’s fair to ask this. You are probably sensing I am a reasonable guy (or at least I try to be). So you are wondering if I will be reasonable enough to admit error on my part.
THAT is a question worth asking of anyone. I’d love to see a JFC member ask Woodnick if he feels bad for making false statements to the court? Is he man enough to apologize?
Since this question is focused on me, I will tell you what I’ve already said – I have LOTS of comments/thoughts/insights I would like to share. Believe me, my brain is exploding with crap I’d like to say. That’s partly why I am looking forward to the bar stuff getting started….so I can UNLOAD all my thoughts on those folks.
So why not say it all now? Simple – ER 1.6 says I can’t. There are also other ethical rules which significantly limit any lawyer’s ability to speak freely in this context. And while I have expressed strong disagreement with the AZ Bar’s super-strict interpretation of ER 1.6, in this case I happen to agree with the rule.
Unless a client specifically asked me to talk about their case (which certainly does happen), the default rule is that a lawyer should keep his/her mouth shut. Not because you are hiding anything. It’s because the case doesn’t belong to you. It belongs to your client, and it’s really not your call to make noise about a client’s story, at least not when they haven’t asked for it.
Of course, I’ve also explained ER 1.6 has a big FAT exception which I’ll quote in part:
(d) A lawyer may reveal such information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary:
****
(4) to … respond to allegations in any proceeding concerning the lawyer’s representation of the client;
Ariz. Rule of Prof. Conduct ER 1.6(d)(4).
That’s what you see happening here. I have been accused of misconduct in connection with Laura’s case. ER 1.6 strictly limits what I’m allowed to say, BUT I can “respond to allegations” as I deem necessary.
Of course, laws/rules ALWAYS are filled with caveats, exceptions, etc., and that’s true of ER 1.6(d)(4). There’s a comment below the rule which serves as a clear warning – just because a lawyer may “respond” to allegations, you MUST do so as narrowly as possible, which may include seeking protective orders so the information you are disclosing can ONLY be seen by people with a direct need to know:
[19] Paragraph (d) permits disclosure only to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes the disclosure is necessary to accomplish one of the purposes specified …. In any case, a disclosure adverse to the client’s interest should be no greater than the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to accomplish the purpose. If the disclosure will be made in connection with a judicial proceeding, the disclosure should be made in a manner that limits access to the information to the tribunal or other persons having a need to know it and appropriate protective orders or other arrangements should be sought by the lawyer to the fullest extent practicable.
What’s my point? My point is even if I hypothetically wanted to “apologize” to someone about something, this isn’t something I am necessarily free to do. So don’t interpret my silence as proof I am not “man enough” to admit error (nor does that mean I am admitting I have anything to apologize for). If you knew me, you would know I am the FIRST person to admit mistakes (assuming the admission was ethically allowed), and I will ALWAYS apologize if/when I screw up (which happens a lot).
Speaking of which, I think I might need to make a video apologizing for something I said about Judge Mata. It is POSSIBLE I may have said something incorrect. Is that worth a video? We shall see if time permits.
Now, about the person who responded to Tahira — here’s that response, and then I’ll add a few comments….
OKAY pal, don’t be shocked, but your comment is….not something that sits well with me. “[My] parents handed everything to [me] on a silver platter…”
NOTE TO SELF: DAVID – STOP – REMEMBER – THESE PEOPLE ARE TROLLS. THEY ARE NOT ACTING IN GOOD FAITH. THEY SHIT POST FROM THEIR BASEMENT NOT BECAUSE IT’S TRUE. THEY POST LIES JUST TO GET A REACTION FROM YOU….JUST LIKE LAUREN.
(Deep Breath Taken – Calm, Zen) — Look, if I have learned anything on this amazing journey, it’s that I can’t win over everyone. There are always going to be worms in the dirt. Those worms survive by eating shit and excreting more shit. That is their purpose – shit goes in, shit comes out. Some worms even have human-sounding names – like Lauren.
But they are still worms. And you owe them nothing.
On the other hand, the festering turds in the dirt like Lauren (as worthless and harmless as she is) still cause indirect damage because other people see their crap and don’t realize they are reading worm shit, not real words from a normal human.
So, to avoid any confusion I’ll just explain a couple of things:
- Was I lucky as a kid growing up (in terms of my family having some money)? ABSOLUTELY. I was incredibly fortunate, and extremely grateful.
- Did my family’s money “spoil” me?If I am completely honest, I think maybe when I was younger, I felt a little more entitled than I should have. But guess what happened? My parents divorced when I was 14, and my father ended up leaving the country (he moved to Africa when I was 15). We had to sell our big, fancy house and my mom and I moved to a small condo. My sister moved out when she was 18, so she wasn’t around during most of this.
After my parents split up, our financial situation went downhill…as it usually does following a divorce. Did I continue sitting around feeling entitled? Absolutely not – I immediately started working, and I continued working as much as I could through high school and during most of college. When I was a senior in high school in 1989-90, I worked nearly 40 hours a week in a restaurant in Palo Alto called Macheezmo Mouse.
And I have receipts to back this up. I just went and pulled my lifetime earnings report from ssa.gov. As you can see, I first began earning income in 1988. I was born in 1972, so do the math — I was 16 back then (I actually began working at age 14, but I guess this must have been unreported income due to my age). If you consider the minimum wage back then was around $4.25/hr., my earnings in 1990 ($5,645) were pretty impressive. I think my pay rate was around $5.50/hr. That suggests I worked over 1,000 hours in 1990, while attending high school and later college in the fall at ASU.
I worked all through high school and all but one year of college (not sure what happened in 1993?).
A rich, spoiled brat wouldn’t do that.
- As for “never being told no my whole life” — oh, just fuck off. Of course I’ve been told no. A million times. Mata told me no. The Court of Appeals said no. AZ Supreme Court. Jim Lee is giving me a hard NO. Scottsdale Police aren’t too happy with me either.But you don’t stop trying just because you lose one fight…or 20 fights. It’s like that old Wayne Gretzky quote: “You miss 100% of the shots you don’t take.” I’ve taken many shots, won lots, lost a few. But I keep trying.
Look, at the end of the day, I fought HARD for Laura…because that is my job. Over the last 25 years of doing this, I have fought many similar battles for clients. I’ve won far more times than I have lost. There is also a BIG reason why I fight so hard…which I’ve never explained…but this post is already too long. Save that for another time.
As for me being a narcissist – that’s your opinion the shitpost words of a troll. I am the nicest person you will ever meet IRL, and I care deeply about clients, friends, family…basically everyone.
Except Lauren. 🐛🪱
After listening to this podcast (https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-daily/id1200361736?i=1000739836226), I am done trying to convince you of a damn thing. And fully support your right to free speech, David. Hope you have a miserable Christmas and a disbarring new year!
David: You talk at length about ethics and professionalism, yet you resort to calling Lauren a ‘worm’ because she said something you didn’t like. That’s not ethical, it’s not professional, and it doesn’t reflect well on you. Disagreeing with someone is fine — demeaning them isn’t. Also I love how you deflect and instead of doing the right thing suggest you’ll do the right thing if Woodnick does. You know the saying, well if Woodnick were to jump off a bridge would you?? And what exactly did Woodnick lie about??? Please educate us!! And his hair looks just fine too, you’re just jealous you don’t have 1 oz. of charm like Zaddy Gregg.
Your arguments are always just semantics kinda like the time you said Dave Neal lied when he said Laura Owens filed an appeal and you said “that’s BS it’s just a notice of appeal”. Yeah yeah whatever technical Tom, in the meantime keep Lauren and Dave Neal’s names out of your mouth!
Your reliance on ER 1.6, particularly subsection (d)(4), is not nearly as airtight or exculpatory as you present it to be. In fact, the way you cite the rule selectively — while ignoring the broader ethical framework and your own conduct — undermines the argument you are trying to build.
First, ER 1.6(d)(4) is permissive, not mandatory. The rule states a lawyer may disclose information “to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to respond to allegations concerning the lawyer’s representation.” This does not create a blanket authorization to air broad narratives or personal grievances, nor does it justify gratuitous commentary about former clients or third parties. The word “necessary” has meaning: disclosures must be narrowly tailored, directly responsive, and proportional. You point to Comment [19] but seem to disregard the key limitation it imposes: disclosure “should be made in a manner that limits access to the information” and should be “no greater” than necessary. Your posts, which include personal attacks, general commentary, and speculation unrelated to any specific allegation, run directly counter to this restraint.
If you were genuinely attempting to comply with ER 1.6, you would be seeking protective orders, making sealed submissions, or limiting your remarks to the smallest subset of facts required to clarify the allegation. You are doing the opposite — publishing information broadly and voluntarily in a public forum. That is not responsive disclosure; it is self-serving commentary. ER 1.6(d)(4) is not a loophole that authorizes reputation-management campaigns disguised as ethical compliance.
Second, your argument presumes that the mere existence of criticism automatically triggers the exception. That is not how ER 1.6 operates. “Allegations” within the meaning of the rule typically arise in formal proceedings — grievances, litigation, or official inquiries — not in blog comments from private individuals. By elevating ordinary disagreement or online commentary into “allegations in a proceeding,” you expand the rule far beyond its intended scope. A lawyer cannot treat any negative remark as justification for public disclosure of case-related information.
Third, your description of your ethical obligations appears to shift depending on what you want to say. You claim you are prohibited from apologizing, but nothing in ER 1.6 prevents a lawyer from apologizing in general terms that do not reveal protected information. “I’m sorry for how something came across” does not violate confidentiality. You also state that you can’t admit error because of restrictions on discussing a client’s case — yet you simultaneously describe your client, the case, and your feelings about it at length. You cannot treat the rule as both an absolute gag order and a flexible shield depending on convenience.
Finally, your tone — dismissive, hostile, and personal — undermines the credibility of your legal reasoning. Ethical arguments gain strength from discipline and consistency. When they are intertwined with insults and self-promotion, they appear less like principled reliance on professional rules and more like rhetorical cover for conduct the rules were designed to prevent.
In short, ER 1.6(d)(4) does not justify your approach here. It is a narrow exception requiring discipline, proportionality, and restraint — none of which are reflected in your public commentary
Well, well. So much to unpack here. I dont know how productive this is at this point since you tend to label anyone who criticizes you as a troll in a basement even if they do so in a mature, respectful way (while the ultimate irony is, the only person tossing out troll- like insults at people who disagree with you is…. you? Exhibit A: recently telling someone that asked s polite question on your YouTube chanel, that they beat their kids? Completely off the wall, aggro responses and then you wonder why people midlly question whether you have substance abuse issues) but that’s par for the course . Aaanyway. Thank you for outlining your employment history for me. I do stand corrected that you have been less spoiled and more independent in comparison to your client (who is the ultimate failure to launch and has been financially dependent on her family her entire adult life) but despite perhaps earning your keep, I still maintain your deep sense of entitlement is on full display. You named the people that told you no, all those people you have turned around and unprofessionally attacked, so kind of proving my point here, no? You seem to allude to some big reason why you ” fight this hard” but of course dont reveal what that is. if you are trying to make folks see your side, perhaps you might want to delve into that a bit deeper in future posts. Just saying. Because literally every lawyer that laid eyes on this case was bewildered at how you’ve conducted yourself. Put it this way- there has not been ONE person that has come out in support of your character not one former colleague or former client . I’m no lawyer either but one would think that there would be one person in the span of that illustrious career of yours that can come to your defense to tell us how wrong we have it. Because at some point when 99.9% of people following this case from all walks of life unanimously agree you’re wrong, plus judges plus AZ court of appeals, plus AZ bar, the list goes on…maybe its not a cult and maybe the problem is you? I know you’re logical enough of a person to understand this but some voice inside you refuses to and for lack of a better explanation I called it narcissism but who knows what the true root of it is, all the more reason to learn why you staked your entire career on a client that clearly lied repeatedly, whom you swore you would drop for lying but never did. But hey, you were super helpful in turning her civil case into a criminal one with 14 felony charges so congrats on that, win some and lose some as you said lol
As for apologizing, here’s another absolutely ridiculous hot take. Whenever you did need to keep things under wraps ,you very clearly didn’t, yet here suddenly you evoke your duty to be silent. C’mon now, you must think we’re all stupid. I won’t speak for Tahira, but I can list a few people you may owe apologies to that wont in any way jeopardize this ER 1.6 rule you keep referring to.
Just you know, people you have needlessly and rather nastily disparaged, accomplished lawyers such as Rachel Juarez who tried to have a professional dialogue with you, Dave Neal who you threatened to make homeless (speaking of “nicest people you ever meet IRL”, by the way! i can vouch for that!) And of course Judge Mata, you may think its your First Amendment right to behave that unprofessional in an official court filing but even if lets say you can, does it mean you should? There is a reason why lawyers take an oath to abide by certain measure of ethical and moral standards and yet here you are, digging your heels in deeper and deeper on this point, like you do about everything else. The moment you finally drop this act and admit that some of this was way beyond the pale and not ok, maybe that will be the moment you might have a small win in this war on the public opinion you are so relentlessly waging.
P.s Not sure what Lauren has to do with anything we were discussing. Yet you’ve brought up her name repeatedly here. She hasn’t mentioned you in a few weeks, methinks you just hate that she stopped paying attention to you , its ok if you miss her, I get it 😉
There once was a lawyer so dim,
Whose arguments wiggled like worms on a whim.
His logic went splat,
Like poop dropped by a gnat.
And the courtroom soon smelled just like him!
David why oh why would you ruin what reputation you had for that no good for nothing twat that lies about everything. She is absolutely an abhorrent person that has nothing going for her. You on the other hand probably could have been a good lawyer if you had never got mixed up with her.
Hello , this tahira thanks for responding i really appreciate it. I understand you have a legal obligation to not speak about your clients and her criminal charges that is ongoing. I get your not everyone’s cup of tea. But I fell like you just want to help your client and support her as best as you could. And for that I can’t be mad or upset even if I don’t agree with certain things you have said about the JFC. I come from a place where you have be mentally prepared for anything life throws your way. So nothing that anyone says or thinks about me will affect me ,its there issue not mine. But with that being said you have really gone hard on some of them, just in defense of your client, you really put yourself on the line trying to really defend her from a situation she clearly bought to the forefront. I see your passion I see your dedication I see that you just really wanting to help, I just think it was for someone who probably doesn’t really appreciate all you have put yourself through in defense of a situation that she created.. Also I love your cat 🐈 I have 2 Mittens and muffins
Thanks for writing back. Some thoughts:
1.) I agree I have said some not nice things about other people. That is NOT normal for me. I am ALWAYS nice. But I have my limits, so when people are horrible to me, I usually try to turn the other cheek, but at some point you have to push back. I wish it wasn’t necessary, but this case has been extremely weird.
2.) I LOVE my cat. Always happy to meet a fellow cat person.
3.) As for this line: “I just think it was for someone who probably doesn’t really appreciate all you have put yourself through in defense of a situation that she created.” I understand what you mean, but this is really (almost entirely) not relevant. I fought hard for Laura because I believed her legal position was correct, and I still do. The safe harbor provision in Rule 26 is VERY, VERY, VERY important. Lawyers and people in court NEED to have the right to use that safe harbor (which is why it was added to the rule in 2019). But at present, the safe harbor no longer exists. ANY person who makes a mistake can have their life completely ruined. That is NOT how this process is supposed to work, and it is a HUGE mistake for the courts to render the safe harbor meaningless. I’m still hopeful this error will be fixed one day…and I’m not going to stop fighting until that happens (yes, there are still options that exist for fixing this mistake).
David, please just knock off the safe harbor bull shit. You know there is not (and shouldn’t be) safe harbor protection for a case filed in bad faith. Laura filed this lawsuit in bad faith, you know it, she knows it, so does everyone else. The court rightfully determined that as well. You also know in AZ the court has inherent power to impose sanctions for abusive litigation. Laura has an almost 10 year history of abusive litigation, and deserves the ruling she received.
Also, you keep claiming how important the safe harbor rule is, of course it’s important in litigation to be able to correct errors and I’m sure most reasonable people would agree, but its important that it’s used correctly and not in an attempt to abuse the system. If you are serious about working to get the safe harbor rule reinstated, this case is not the one, it will only harm to your cause. Your interpretations of the rules are definitely unique, which can be a good thing for your clients at times, but in this case it was a failure. You put in a great effort for your client, but you were working with a heaping pile of shit to begin with. Laura had done irreparable damage before she ever retained you.
I do have a few questions for you, you said you’re always a nice person until someone is horrible to you. How exactly was Judge Mata horrible to you? By ruling against you? By rejecting your questionable legal arguments? I’m trying to understand why she was so deserving of your vitriolic behavior.
What about Mike M.? What exactly did he do to you? Not the line about showing up without a valid subpoena, that’s worn out and I don’t need to list the authorities that told you that you were wrong in this matter. It was another creative attempt to get the results your client wanted, which I can understand. Also not that you didn’t get to interview him before the hearing, because we’ve all seen the email he sent you stating exactly what he was planning to testify to if given the opportunity, as well as why he was originally going to speak to you and then changed his mind. So why Mike?
There are others that ended up on your naughty list that I would like to know about, and quite a few that I understand. With all sincerity, I know I’m not entitled to an explanation from you, but I would really appreciate one.
Tahirah is David, David is Tahirah. Nice try Ginger bread. And I’m not Greg.
No I’m a real person, and I do appreciate that Mr Gingras responded to my question.
Tahirah is David, David is Tahirah. Nice try Ginger bread. And no I’m not Greg.
Again I’m real , he is not making me up .
I can confirm Tahirah is a real person. She emailed me privately. Not made up, and not a Smurf or whatever you call it.
“I fought hard for Laura because I believed her legal position was correct”
I think the disconnect with you and JFC is that they are not lawyers, so their problem is not Laura’s legal position, but rather the horrible things she has done. I (personally) agree with you regarding the law part initially but when she started lying in court I think things went downhill for me….
You said you are ALWAYS nice but you just simply say really mean things about others. Just use Clayton as an example…. You have no reason to say crap about him just because he was defending himself
There is an old saying that EVERY lawyer knows: “Bad facts make bad law.”
The poor outcome here was due to facts that I had no control over. Those facts existed before I came along, and I was stuck with them. Ultimately, I did not think, and still don’t believe, the facts should have made any difference. The law is the law, and it was not followed here. Sucks, but that does happen sometimes.
As for being mean, again, I am not free to speak openly about all this. But I honestly don’t think I have attacked Clayton. I barely mention the guy, and I don’t think he is the main problem. Woodnick was the real problem, for so many reasons.
And just one other thing – please try to remember I have a very unique perspective on all this. Not because I’ve been Laura’s attorney. My unique perspective is based on the fact I have walked in Clayton’s shoes. I was sued for paternity in 2006 by a woman who claimed I was the father of her child. I spent 5 minutes taking the DNA test (which just involved a mouth swab), and the DNA ruled me out as the father. The entire thing cost $0 and it was the easiest claim to disprove. THAT is where I think Clayton deserves a LOT of criticism — he has blown the case SO far out of proportion, at least in terms of claiming he had to incur $150K in fees defending the PATERNITY PETITION. That is 100% false. Clayton did not have to spend anything to defeat Laura’s PETITION. She moved to drop the petition before Clayton really spent anything (and she would have dropped it before he spent even $1).
What Woodnick did was to use the family court hearing as a way of trying a civil tort claim which Mata had no jurisdiction over. This is an issue I’ve mentioned before, but never really argued it (because I thought the Rule 26 stuff was more than enough to resolve the case). But lack of subject matter jurisdiction is an issue that can be raised at ANY point…even years later. So while this plan isn’t 100% finalized, I can easily see bringing a future motion to vacate Mata’s judgment based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. I would do that tomorrow, but I want the chance to depose Mata first, so I can prove the other misconduct claims which were rejected as being too “speculative”.
Or maybe I’ll just retire and forget about all this.
David, com on! You keep spinning the facts to the point it’s frustrating to even try and see where you’re coming from, and believe me I’m trying!
First, there is written proof in their emails that Clayton (and Greg as another example) repeatedly tried to take a paternity test. Clayton was even the one who found the lab that would test on twins. Each time Laura would tentatively agree then tell her victim they needed to spend time with her, date her, get to know her ‘with intention’ before she will do the test. So neither Clayton or Greg had the opportunity to just test and move on like you did. It’s disingenuous at this point to keep arguing that. Also, Clayton submitted his part to the paternity test in September and Laura still drug the case out until December, 2 tests came back in that time little to no fetal DNA. That shows she not only wasn’t pregnant then, but was never pregnant the few years before when she claimed twins with Greg. Fetal DNA stays in mothers system for many years, like 6 or so.
In the time between when he submitted his DNA and Laura notified him and the court that she was no longer pregnant she continued her deceptive behavior and committed some of the crimes she is now charged with. It was no where close to the situation you have described going through.
The facts are Laura brought a case in bad faith to harass a man that rejected her and the Judge had every right to not just let Laura cut and run when it was getting to hard to keep the false narrative going. If it was a case where a woman truly was pregnant and lost the pregnancy during the course of the litigation, timely notified the parties upon that loss, then moved to have the case vacated, I’m sure it would have been granted and all parties would have moved on with their lives. But that’s not the case here, and your continued insistence that it is, is quite frustrating. You’re not an idiot, so why keep these tired arguments going that make you look so foolish? You have to know the facts by now, even if you didn’t bother to learn them before the hearing last year. How many attorneys and judges have disagreed with your position on this case?
For your mental health you should just stop. I don’t know if you’ve realized it yet but I suspect your life started spiraling the day you met Laura Owens. Or maybe I’m wrong and you were already going down this path of self destruction before Laura ever walked into your life. Either way you should probably just move on.
@Tara 👏👏👏👏👏Standing ovation. 10 out of 10. No notes.
There IS a difference between your situation and Clayton’s, because you are unknown and you really have no reputation to protect. I also suspect that your tentative baby mamma didn’t talk to the media, and try to establish a parenting plan long before the baby was born. I also doubt that you were inundated with electronic communication to the degree that Clayton was.
Greetings David,
I have been following this case for quite some time. Even before you ever joined the case or after you bowed out. It has been quite the whirlwind of an “adventure”. I say adventure because just like an adventure, it has ups, downs, goods, bads, and all the other things. I can’t imagine being in your shoes. Taking a case, being a defense lawyer who just wants their client to have the best representation they can have. And hey! You did it. And you seem to still be fighting for her. That is commendable.
But that is where, in my opinion, you should have left everything. The trial ends, you are no longer associated with the criminal or civil suits (for the most part). You should truly find peace in that and just move on.
But instead…you choose to poke and prod and bring up someone’s name, comparing them to dirt, worms, turds, etc. after this person has done NOTHING to you. The only reason I can IMAGINE you would do this is for ATTENTION.
JFC crew was piling on. You were “famous”. You had “followers”, even if you constantly belittled them and fought back like both the JFC and you were elementary school kids who found a toy in the sandbox and couldn’t decide who found it first! But then the trial ended, Laura didn’t need your services and a few months later, after the OOP against MM was dismissed, you started to drift away, back to your quiet, easy life that, as you put it, won’t change a bit because the bar complaints aren’t going anywhere that will negatively affect your life.
Was that boring? Were you unhappy with the lack of attention? That honestly feels like the only reason you would lash out and belittle Lauren, randomly, months later.
Please correct me if I am wrong. If you can point to a comment she made to you or about you (that is ACTUALLY from her and you can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt and not some random poster that you FEEL like is her) and you are doing this to “get back at her” then I will stand corrected. But again, someone doesn’t say a negative thing about you for months and then BOOM! You decide you need the attention again.
I don’t believe you are a bad person in the slightest. And in all honesty, I think you are a genuinely good person at heart and just got caught up in this drama. But the more you try to defend your “side” and belittle those who aren’t even commenting about you anymore is starting to prove to me otherwise.
Focus on the future and your own situation. Stop focusing on people who aren’t focused on you anymore.
Mr Gingras. Wow. Your last comment shows your narcissistic mentality. You absolutely have NOT walked in Clayton Echard’s shoes. Your situation is not even close to Echards. Your diatribe here on Dec 9th is atrocious. You sound exactly like Miss Laura Owens who simply will not admit she’s wrong and continues with her disillusions. Let it go, Mr Gingras. You life will take a turn to the better. But neither you or Owens see that for yourselves.
I have had a girl stalker. I am on another woman’s child’s birth cert, which I found out about three years later and blood tests proved differently. And I’ve been falsely accused of “rape” by yet a third and totally different woman. These three reasons drew me into this saga. I feel for Echard, but I would never think I’ve walked in Echard’s shoes.
You’re so full of yourself in every response you spew. I’ve seen you say several times “I’m ALWAYS nice”. Geez, dude, really? Do you even know what “Always” means?